get_groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions listing sub-groups under a parent ID and default count, but omits crucial details like behavior when id is null (possibly top-level groups), permissions, rate limits, or mutability. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise with two lines plus an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose and uses a clear structure. Each sentence adds information, though slightly repetitive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values may be documented elsewhere. However, the description lacks details on pagination, behavior when id is null, and how it differs from sibling tools like get_devices. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 0% documentation coverage, so the description adds value. It clarifies 'id' as parent group ID to list sub-groups and 'count' as max results with default 500, going beyond the schema's basic type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'List PRTG groups' with a brief context that groups organize devices. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_devices or get_sensors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description implies a general listing function but lacks clear context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.